valMEhttps://valme.io/
//valme.io/rss/all/tag/religion/en-usSun, 15 Sep 2019 05:32:44 -0500https://valme.io/c/pot-kettle-black/01sqs/lebron-james-spouting-off-on-gun-control-one-day-then-hiring-armed-guards-to-protect-his-family-with-another
If anti-gunners didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any at all. Another week, another example of hypocrisy among the elites. ]]>Mon, 08 Oct 2018 06:59:19 -0500https://valme.io/c/pot-kettle-black/01sqs/lebron-james-spouting-off-on-gun-control-one-day-then-hiring-armed-guards-to-protect-his-family-with-anotherpot_kettle_blackhttps://valme.io/c/philosophy/hwsqs/my-own-personal-nothingness-from-a-childhood-hallucination-to-the-halls-of-theoretical-physics
“Nothing will come of nothing.”(William Shakespeare, King Lear)

“Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed.”(Blaise Pascal, Pensées, The Misery of Man Without God)

“The… ‘luminiferous ether’ will prove to be superfluous as the view to be developed here will eliminate [the condition of] absolute rest in space.”(Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies)

My most vivid encounter with Nothingness occurred in a remarkable experience I had as a child of 9 years old. It was a Sunday afternoon. I was standing alone in a bedroom of my home in Memphis Tennessee, gazing out the window at the empty street, listening to the faint sound of a train passing a great distance away, and suddenly I felt that I was looking at myself from outside my body. I was somewhere in the cosmos. For a brief few moments, I had the sensation of seeing my entire life, and indeed the life of the entire planet, as a brief flicker in a vast chasm of time, with an infinite span of time before my existence and an infinite span of time afterward. My fleeting sensation…

]]>Sat, 19 May 2018 15:29:00 -0500https://valme.io/c/philosophy/hwsqs/my-own-personal-nothingness-from-a-childhood-hallucination-to-the-halls-of-theoretical-physicsc_prompthttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/49sqs/two-grandmothers-two-priests-and-a-nun-go-to-prison-for-peace
Two grandmothers, two priests and a nun were sentenced in federal court in Tacoma, WA Monday March 28, 2011, for confronting hundreds of US nuclear weapons stockpiled for use by the deadly Trident submarines.

Sentenced were: Sr. Anne Montgomery, 83, a Sacred Heart sister from New York, who was ordered to serve 2 months in federal prison and 4 months electronic home confinement; Fr. Bill Bischel, 81, a Jesuit priest from Tacoma Washington, ordered to serve 3 months in prison and 6 months electronic home confinement; Susan Crane, 67, a member of the Jonah House community in Baltimore, Maryland, ordered to serve 15 months in federal prison; Lynne Greenwald, 60, a nurse from Bremerton Washington, ordered to serve 6 months in federal prison; and Fr. Steve Kelly, 60, a Jesuit priest from Oakland California, ordered to serve 15 months in federal prison. They were also ordered to pay $5300 each and serve an additional year in supervised probation. Bischel and Greenwald are active members of the Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action, a community resisting Trident nuclear weapons since 1977.

What did they do?

In the darkness of All Souls night, November 2, 2009, the five quietly cut through a chain link perimeter fence topped with barbed wire.

Carefully stepping through the hole in the fence, they entered into the Kitsap-Bangor Navy Base outside of Tacoma Washington - home to hundreds of nuclear warheads used in the eight Trident submarines based there.

Walking undetected through the heavily guarded base for hours, they covered nearly four miles before they came to where the nuclear missiles are stored.

The storage area was lit up by floodlights. Dozens of small gray bunkers -- about the size of double car garages -- were ringed by two more chain link fences topped with taut barbed wire.

USE OF DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED, one sign boldly proclaimed. Another said WARNING RESTRICTED AREA, and was decorated with skull and crossbones.

This was it -- the heart of the US Trident Pacific nuclear weapon program. Nuclear weapons were stored in the bunkers inside the double fence line.

Each of the eight Trident submarines has 24 nuclear missiles on it. The Ground Zero community explains that each of the 24 missiles on one submarine have multiple warheads in it and each warhead has thirty times the destructive power of the weapon used on Hiroshima. One fully loaded Trident submarine carries 192 warheads, each designed to explode with the power of 475 kilotons of TNT force. If detonated at ground level each would blow out a crater nearly half a mile wide and several hundred feet deep.

The bunker area where they were arrested is where the extra missiles are stored.

In December 2010, the five went on trial before a jury in federal court in Tacoma charged with felony damage to government property, conspiracy and trespass.

But before the trial began the court told the defendants what they could and could not do in court. Evidence of the medical consequences of nuclear weapons? Not allowed. Evidence that first strike nuclear weapons are illegal under US and international law? Not allowed. Evidence that there were massive international nonviolent action campaigns against Trident missiles where juries acquitted protestors? Not allowed. The defense of necessity where violating a small law, like breaking down a door, is allowed where the actions are taken to prevent a greater harm, like saving a child trapped in a burning building? Not allowed.

Most of the jurors appeared baffled when defendants admitted what they did in their opening statements. They remained baffled when questions about nuclear weapons were objected to by the prosecutor and excluded by the court. The court and the prosecutor repeatedly focused the jury on their position that this was a trial about a fence. Defendants tried valiantly to point to the elephant in the room -- the hundreds of nuclear weapons.

Each defendant gave an opening and closing statement explaining, as much as they were allowed, why they risked deadly force to expose the US nuclear arsenal.

Sojourner Truth was discussed as were Rosa Parks, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King.

The resistance of the defendants was in the spirit of the civil rights movement, the labor movement, the suffragist movement, the abolition of slavery movement.

Crowds packed the courtroom each of the five days of trial. Each night there was a potluck and a discussion of nuclear weapons by medical, legal and international experts who came for the trial but who were largely muted by the prosecution and the court.

While the jury held out over the weekend, ultimately, the activists were convicted.

Hundreds packed the courthouse today supporting the defendants. The judge acknowledged the good work of each defendant, admitted that prison was unlikely to deter them from further actions, but said he was bound to uphold the law otherwise anarchy would break out and take down society.

The prosecutors asked the judge to send all the defendants to federal prison plus three years supervised probation plus pay over five thousand dollars. The specific jail time asked for ranged from 3 years for Fr. Kelly, 30 months for Susan Crane, Lynne Greenwald, 7 months in jail plus 7 months home confinement, Sr. Anne Montgomery and Fr. Bill Bichsel, 6 months jail plus 6 months home confinement.

Each of the defendants went right into prison from the courtroom as the spectators sang to them. Outside the courthouse, other activists pledged to confront the Trident in whatever way is necessary to stop the illegal and immoral weapons of mass destruction.

]]>Wed, 04 Oct 2017 18:05:01 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/49sqs/two-grandmothers-two-priests-and-a-nun-go-to-prison-for-peacebraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/69sqs/the-seven-blunders-of-the-world-that-lead-to-violence
When it comes to non-violent, ideological leaders, Mahatma Gandhi has got to be toward the very top of the list. His resistance to British tyranny through mass civil disobedience is famous. Needless to say, he spent a lot of time in prison and was eventually murdered. So it goes.

His grandson is said to have added an eighth item to the list: rights without responsibilities.

If it is true that these seven (or eight) things lead to most of the violence in the world, what specific actions are we doing to correct them? How do you rate your political or spiritual leaders relative to these seven items? What are you personally doing in the context of these seven to make the world a better place? What do you think is missing from the list? What examples can you see in the world that validate this list?

]]>Wed, 04 Oct 2017 17:59:06 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/69sqs/the-seven-blunders-of-the-world-that-lead-to-violencebraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/09sqs/one-nation-under-god-and-undereducated
For the most part, public education in the US is a disaster. Where the blame lies will be forever debated, but to claim otherwise is to sleep undisturbed in a fantasy world with "stark wake-up calls" all around. In a country that is arguably one of the most advanced in the world in many respects, having scores in math (31st), reading (17th), and science (23rd) near the bottom just isn't defensible. (China holds first place in all three.)

Perhaps one of the key issues is what we're teaching - faith in education (and we don't mean trust that educators will eventually figure it out).

Intelligent design (a type of creationism) is claimed to be "a scientific theory which holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution." In other words, intelligent design is a hypothesis based on religious tenets that an intelligent being - God - designed life with a purpose.

There are many who think that intelligent design should be taught in public schools, including multiple Republican presidential candidates. Texas Governor Rick Perry just stated that "in Texas we teach both creationism and evolution," which is likely an accurate statement. However, in 1987, the US Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard "that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution, was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion."

If teachers in Texas (or other states) are teaching creationism, are they breaking the law? What constitutes a science? Do you think intelligent design is a science? Does intelligent design have to be a science to be taught in public schools? Should children learn both intellectual design and evolution in public schools? Is teaching creationism negatively impacting science aptitude?

Here are other scientific questions to ask small children: When you walk around, does the earth look flat or round? When you look at the sun in the morning and evening, does it look like the sun is moving around the earth or that the earth is moving around the sun at approximately 67,000 mph?

...Governor Perry is correct in saying that evolution is controversial. But the "controversy" is religious and political, not scientific. Perry and other anti-evolutionists should be asked questions like:

(1) How do scientists describe the theory of evolution by natural selection?

(2) How do scientists distinguish a hypothesis from a theory?

(3) As a scientific theory, how is creationism falsifiable?

An educated person should understand the rudiments of the scientific method. Creationism should no more be taught as an alternative to the theory of evolution by natural selection than should the "stork theory" be taught as an alternative to reproduction. Creationism is an alternative to Zeus or Krishna, not to Darwin.

Only 38 percent of Americans say they believe in evolution, and far too many politicians are either among the other 62 percent or pander to them. This, to me, is evidence that democracy works best when we have an informed electorate. I agree with Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." However, science is not and should not become democratic. If 100 million people believe a wrong thing, it is still a wrong thing.

I'm even uncomfortable with the way the poll question was phrased. Evolution is not a belief; it is confirmed through scientific investigation. We don't take polls asking people if they "believe" in gravity, though the theory of evolution is better understood by scientists than is the theory of gravity.

Some religions may feel threatened by evolution not only because it flatly contradicts a biblical worldview, but also because we now understand that the first creatures who can be called human inherited their DNA from creatures who could not be called human. The first mammals got their DNA from their reptilian ancestors. And so it goes back to the first single-celled organism. I leave it for religious people to decide where a "soul" enters this picture (and whether they want to believe in DNA).

]]>Wed, 04 Oct 2017 17:16:19 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/09sqs/one-nation-under-god-and-undereducatedbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/94sqs/the-courage-of-convictions-rational-people-dont-agree-to-disagree
Politics. Morality. Religion. Relationships. Even science. These are examples of the many categories in which you will find disagreements. These debates occur just as much with intelligent people as they do with those of lesser mental aptitudes.

When people get frustrated with another's reasoning in such heated discussions, you will often hear the phrase "we'll have to agree to disagree." It means that one party will tolerate the other party's position while simultaneously rejecting it.

But according to Bayesians, rational people shouldn't agree to disagree... because it's not rational. Mutual awareness of opinions requires that you agree.

The idea is effectively this: if you both have the same information, it should be impossible to disagree. It's not simply a matter of another's opinion - it's a matter of calculating where the error is in the objective logic. The error likely comes from some psychological bias, whereby someone disregards information that is unpleasant to them or that doesn't conform to what they know. This is known as a cognitive bias (one of the more infamous ones being the Dunning-Kruger effect).

Granted, there are some hard assumptions in this idea. For example, the people debating must have the same information (aka "common priors"). But it's rare to find that disagreeing people have the exact same information. The idea could also be considered circular: rational people agree that they shouldn't disagree. You don't agree with that theory. Therefore, you are acting irrationally. Thus, the idea is sound.

One of the goals of rational people should be to trace differences in information to identify where relevant facts are missing and where subjective content is entering into the argument. If you and the person you are debating are honest, truth-seeking people, you should each strive to obtain, at minimum, a complete set of facts. To find and eliminate the biases, especially as they apply to relevance, you must explore the details of your influences and potential self-deception. What is objectively true should never be a disagreement among rational people. Unlike politics, facts should change our beliefs.

When people disagree, how do you determine if the disagreement is rational? Would we gain more agreement if we identified our favored positions or biases as part of the discussions? As Sextus Empiricus has suggested, should we suspend judgment about virtually all beliefs and be skeptics of everything? How much of a rational argument can be subjective and still considered rational? How do you know if someone's beliefs are derived through reason? What are the standards for rationality?

It's been mentioned a few times already, but I want to draw attention to what is IMO probably the most interesting, surprising and challenging result in the field of human bias: that mutually respectful, honest and rational debaters cannot disagree on any factual matter once they know each other's opinions. They cannot "agree to disagree", they can only agree to agree.

This result goes back to Nobel Prize winner Robert Aumann in the 1970s: Agreeing to Disagree. Unfortunately Aumann's proof is quite static and formal, building on a possible-world semantics formalism so powerful that Aumann apologizes: "We publish this note with some diffidence, since once one has the appropriate framework, it is mathematically trivial." It's ironic that a result so counter-intuitive and controversial can be described in such terms...

There is much that can be said on this topic but I'll focus on two aspects here. The result can be seen in either normative terms, telling us what we should do as rational thinkers, or positive terms, describing how rational humans behave. In the positive sense, it is obvious that the theorem is not a good description of human behavior. People do disagree persistently, and when they "agree to disagree" it is taken as a sign of respect rather than mutual contempt. It's possible that this is mere politeness, though, and that we recognize at some level that such failures to reach agreement indicate a certain lack of good faith among the participants...

Normatively what I find most striking is the variation in how people respond upon learning of this result. Many people have a strong intuitive opposition to it, and seek out loopholes and exceptions which will allow them to justify their persistent disagreements. Indeed, such loopholes do exist, the most notable being the assumption that the debaters are acting as Bayesian reasoners with common priors. However as Tyler and Robin note in their paper, a number of extensions and relaxations of Aumann's original result over the years have increased its scope and made it harder to appeal to these exceptions as a justification for ignoring the results.

]]>Wed, 04 Oct 2017 15:22:53 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/94sqs/the-courage-of-convictions-rational-people-dont-agree-to-disagreebraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/zgsqs/well-ill-be-a-monkeys-uncle-evolution-is-not-a-matter-of-faith
Humans and chimpanzees share 96% of the same DNA. In other words, from a scientific perspective, humans and chimpanzees are genetically very similar.

As the battle between evolution and intelligent design continues, the National Human Genome Research Institute summarizes, "The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence... To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse and about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat. On the other hand, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans."

Although many have known of the relationship between apes and humans for some time (e.g., philosophers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Lord Monboddo viewed apes as progenitors of mankind), we've only been doing DNA sequencing for about 40 years. Clearly, the anatomical and biochemical similarity between chimpanzees and humans are "striking." As scientists continue on their quest to engineer the perfect human, it's going to be evermore difficult to ignore the scientific proof of the link.

"Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes-he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."

Because chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, the chimp genome is the most useful key to understanding human biology and evolution, next to the human genome itself. The breakthrough will aid scientists in their mission to learn what sets us apart from other animals...

To map the chimp genome, researchers used DNA from the blood of a male common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) named Clint, who lived at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta. Clint died last year from heart failure at the relatively young age of 24.

A comparison of Clint's genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our DNA...

Scientists also discovered that some classes of genes are changing unusually quickly in both humans and chimpanzees, as compared with other mammals. These classes include genes involved in the perception of sound, transmission of nerve signals, and the production of sperm.

Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome.

The vast majority of those differences are not biologically significant, but researchers were able to identify a couple thousand differences that are potentially important to the evolution of the human lineage...

Humans and chimps originate from a common ancestor, and scientists believe they diverged some six million years ago.

Obama is currently getting criticized because of his recent speech asserting that the US government officially supports a two-state solution based on Israel's pre-1967 borders along with negotiated land swaps.

In 1966, the US sold its first jet bombers to Israel. With its US weapons and support, in 1967, Israel launched a surprise attack during the Six Day War. As a result, Israel seized the remainder of Palestine (i.e., the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem). Israel also seized Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Syria's Golan Heights.

For over a century, Muslims and Jews have fought over Palestine, both making theological and historical claims. Jews make claim to the land based upon four premises: "1) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham; 2) the Jewish people settled and developed the land; 3) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people and 4) the territory was captured in defensive wars." Muslims make claim to Jerusalem based upon it being one of their ancestral holy cities, mentioned implicitly and explicitly in the Muslims' holy book - the Qur'an - and the Hadith.

Based on historical imperialistic policies in Europe, between 1914 and 1918, the Allies fought against the Central Powers in World War I. The Allies defeated the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. Resulting from the war, the previously Turkish-owned Ottoman Empire (which includes modern-day Israel) was partitioned and the League of Nations was formed in the hope of preventing another such conflict.

(As an aside, in 1795, Immanuel Kant wrote Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch which outlined an idea for a "league of nations" to create "a law of nations" for controlling conflict and promoting peace. Perhaps Kant's idea wasn't very good as, when implemented, the League of Nations clearly failed in its mission. World War II began a short 21 years after it was established.)

To administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations (the precursor to the United Nations) granted sovereign authority of Palestine to Britain for 25 years - from 1923 to 1948. This was called the Palestine Mandate.

In 1947, as Britain was getting to withdraw from Palestine, the United Nations passed a resolution called the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. The idea was to divide British Palestine into two states: one Jewish and one Arab. When Britain withdrew in 1948, Israel unilaterally established itself even though the parties did not yet agree on the terms.

Why is it that the US became much more supportive of Israel? Do you think Obama's speech will make any difference in the Middle East? Do you agree with the position of a two-state solution based on Israel's pre-1967 borders and negotiated land swaps? What do you think should be done to resolve this problem? Is religion a proper basis for property rights? Is it possible for Israel to be safe and/or defend itself with pre-1967 borders? Should the US be sticking its nose into other people's business? Is it possible that Israel will allow the Palestinians their own state if the Palestinians switch to non-violent protests? Do you think we will ever see peace in the Middle East?

The Israelis continued to rely on their French military arms supplier until the 1960s, when Charles de Gaulle came to power. De Gaulle made peace with the Arabs and gave up the French claim to Algeria. DeGaulle then began to mend fences with the Arabs and the first victim of this new reality was the French-Israel connection.

By 1966, Israel had purchased and taken delivery of 76 Mirage IIIC jet aircraft and had purchased and paid for 50 more. DeGaulle refused to deliver the 50 additional jets and he also refused to refund the purchase price, which Israel had paid in full. France also constructed some missile boats for Israel at the Port of Cherbourg for which Israel had also paid in full. DeGaulle refused to deliver the boats but they ultimately found their way to Israel by way of an incredible Israeli intelligence caper...

At this point in the mid-1960s, an interesting event occurred. The Israeli Mossad sent an American female agent to Iraq where she cultivated a romance with Munir Redfa, an Iraqi jet fighter pilot who had been trained both in the United States and the Soviet Union. The pilot, a Christian Arab, was married and had two children. The agent lured him to Paris. When they arrived, the eager prospective lover was told, "This is not about sex. If you would like a handsome sum of money and your family out of Iraq, take this ticket and false passport and fly to Tel Aviv. Otherwise, you may fly back to Iraq."

The Iraqi pilot made the trip to Tel Aviv and ultimately his family left Iraq. Then, on a lovely clear day, he flew an Iraqi Air Force MiG-21 to Israel, where the family was reunited and he got his handsome amount of dollars.

In 1966, the MiG-21 was the Soviet first line jet fighter and no Western country had been able to get near one.

While the official U.S.-Israeli relationship had been first indifferent from 1948 until 1956, and then cold from 1956 into the 1960s, one slender strand of cooperation had remained intact. During World War II, Palestinian Jews had cooperated with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in the fight against Nazi Germany. Following WWII, the OSS became the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The U.S. Chief of Counter Intelligence, James Jesus Angelton, developed, maintained, and nurtured a symbiotic relationship between the CIA and those Palestinian Jews who evolved into the Israeli Mossad.

The Israelis assigned Colonel Danny Shapira to study the MiG-21 and after a short time, they turned it over to the United States Central Intelligence Agency. (Danny Shapira trained a U.S. Air Force F-111 Test Pilot, Lt. Joe Jordan to fly it and the MiG-21 was sent to the United States where it spent a lot of time in an Aggressor Squadron at a U.S. Air Force Base in Nevada.)

Needless to say, the CIA and the U.S. Air Force were delighted with access to the Soviet's first line fighter and the chill of the Eisenhower/Dulles years began to thaw.

Following the turning over of the MiG-21, President Johnson invited Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to his ranch in Texas and Eshkol arrived with a long shopping list. He left with promises of future U.S. military supplies, including A-4 attack aircraft. Although the U.S. military hardware did not arrive in time for the 1967 war, it ultimately replaced the French source for military hardware and the U.S.-Israel special relationship became closer and warmer.

In 1967, Israel was threatened with destruction by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and other Arab countries and the June 1967 war occurred... Prior to the Six Day War, the continued existence of Israel was in doubt. The U.S. relationship was becoming warmer but at best the U.S. was a friendly neutral. Dean Rusk said that being neutral was not an expression of indifference, but Israel was not an ally. At the outbreak of the Six Day War, State Department Spokesman Robert McClosky announced on behalf of the United States: "Our position [on the war] is neutral in thought, word, and deed."

Following Israel's stunning victory in the Six Day War, a euphoria set in around the world and strong support for the state of Israel developed in the United States. American public opinion swung dramatically in favor of Israel and for the first time in history, a majority of American Jews became Zionists, that is they supported the concept of a Jewish state.

From 1967 forward, the special relationship between the United States and Israel developed and grew. It has had its ups and downs on the political level as U.S. national interests, especially the need for oil, make it expedient for the U.S. Government to court favor with various Arab states, but the relationship remained relatively constant and strong at both the military and intelligence levels.

]]>Tue, 03 Oct 2017 19:38:24 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/ggsqs/mine-the-never-ending-fight-over-palestinebraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/dgsqs/getting-off-the-sauce-do-we-choose-to-drink
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, over 50% of Americans age 12 or older have used alcohol in the past 30 days, almost 25% are binge drinkers (5 drinks within 2 hours), and 7% drink heavily. Alcoholism negatively impacts the lives of many, and not just those who are the alcoholics.

As you had failed to solve the problem yourself, AA says you "absolutely must turn your will and your life over to the care of a higher power called God." Turning yourself over to God also helps to remove the isolation that many addicts feel. If you're secular, you can choose the higher power to be whomever or whatever you want it to be, but what you may not do is choose your higher power as yourself. The program is successful for some, but not many.

The definition of a disease is "any deviation from or interruption of the normal structure or function of any body part, organ, or system that is manifested by a characteristic set of symptoms and signs and whose etiology, pathology, and prognosis may be known or unknown." Although there is one gene that appears associated with increased risk of alcoholism, there isn't any conclusive evidence that alcoholism results from heredity or genetic problems. As a result, some claim that addiction is only a psychological problem and one that is solely based on voluntary choice. As proof, they offer that some even go "cold turkey" (i.e., choose to give up your addiction and then do so immediately).

Is addiction a choice or a disease? Have you ever had any addictions and, if so, how did you overcome them? Is the twelve-step program the best way to stop an unhealthy addiction? Why do programs like AA work for some but not others? Is AA a faith-based organization and, if so, does it matter? Does the program undermine your self-confidence and self-esteem by requiring you to put your faith in a higher power? Should we blame alcoholism on a disease or a lack of responsibility? Is requiring people to attend AA compulsory religion?

]]>Tue, 03 Oct 2017 12:35:39 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/dgsqs/getting-off-the-sauce-do-we-choose-to-drinkbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/r6sqs/the-cosmic-conflict-of-religion-and-science
If you're looking for the meaning of life, religions are ready with an answer. As of yet, science doesn't have an answer, other than to possibly claim that there isn't any purpose. (Nihilists of the world rejoice!) Thus, you might conclude that science and religion don't get along. But that conclusion might be premature. Maybe they just have different functions.

Science helps us decide upon and explain the facts. Is science capable of explaining what those facts mean? Why does the Catholic Church study science? Why does the Vatican look for scientific explanation to reality? Do you think it is partially out of guilt for their persecution of Galileo Galilei, a devout Catholic and deeply religious man? What do you see as the conflicts between religion and science? How literal should we interpret religious texts? Can science provide answers to ultimate questions about why things exist and their purposes? Are secular scientists misunderstanding religion?

While this is the official home of the Vatican Observatory, a related facility, the Vatican Observatory Research Group, is set up in the Steward Observatory at the University of Arizona. There, with greater access to high-tech equipment, the Vatican is conducting detailed research on dark matter, quasars and the universe's expansion.

"The idea that the universe is worth studying just because it's worth studying is a religious idea," Consolmagno says. "If you think the universe is fundamentally good and that it's an expression of a good God, then studying how the universe works is a way of becoming intimate with the Creator. It's a kind of worship. And that's been a big motivation for doing any kind of science."

As a scientist who is also a Jesuit brother, Consolmagno suggests that science poses philosophical questions that in turn spark religious inquiries.

"A hundred years ago we didn't understand the Big Bang," he says. "Now that we have the understanding of a universe that is big and expanding and changing, we can ask philosophical questions we would not have known to ask, like 'What does it mean to have multiverses?' These are wonderful questions. Science isn't going to answer them, but science, by telling us what is there, causes us to ask these questions. It makes us go back to the seven days of creation - which is poetry, beautiful poetry, with a lesson underneath it - and say, 'Oh, the seventh day is God resting as a way of reminding us that God doesn't do everything.' God built this universe but gave you and me the freedom to make choices within the universe."

The lessons learned from the trial and condemnation of Galileo in the 1600s have guided an era of scientific caution and hesi­tancy within the Vatican. Today the Vatican's approach to science is a complex undertaking involving nearly every facet of Church life. The Roman Curia - the Church's governing body - includes a network of 5 pontifical academies and 11 pontifical councils, each of them charged with tasks ranging from the promotion of Christian unity to the cataloging of martyrs. To varying degrees, each of the 16 offices - and, of course, the independent Vatican Observatory - intersects with scientific issues, and they tend to rely on the efforts of one academy to provide clarity and consultation: the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Housed in a building several centuries old deep inside Vatican City, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is a surprisingly nonreligious institution as well as one of the Vatican's least understood...

When asked if he thought the scientific understanding of life's beginnings demanded a belief in God, Cabibbo turned heads. "I would say no," he told a journalist at the National Catholic Reporter, adding, however, that "science is incapable of supplying answers to ultimate questions about why things exist and what their purpose is." Cabibbo's statements reflect the Church's ongoing effort to reconcile science and religion, a topic that extends far beyond the walls of the Vatican.

These days it's practically impossible to strike up a conversation with anyone in the Vatican's science programs without invoking the work of the outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins. Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary theorist, wrote the book "The God Delusion," which became an international best seller...

"We call [Dawkins's stance] sci­entism, and there is reference to it in the encyclical," says Father Rafael Pascual, dean of philosophy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome.

"Scientism," Dawkins tells me later, "is the pejorative word sometimes used for the view that science can explain everything and kind of arrogates to itself the privilege of explaining everything. Science cannot tell you what is right and wrong. When it comes to really interesting questions, like 'Where did the laws of physics come from?' or 'How did the universe arrive in the first place?' I genuinely don't know whether science will answer those deep and at present mysterious questions; I am confident that if science can't answer them, nothing else can. But it may be that nothing will ever answer them."

Dawkins expresses skepticism at the Church's mission to build a bridge between science and theology with the use of philosophy. "There is nothing to build a bridge to," he says. "Theology is a complete and utter non­subject." At one point in my talk with Dawkins, Father George Coyne, the well-respected retired head of the Vatican Observatory (and, as such, a former member of the Academy of Sciences), becomes the subject of conversation.

"I met him a few weeks ago and liked him very much," Dawkins says. "And he said to me that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in God, and so I said, 'Why do you believe in God?' and he said: 'It's quite simple. I was brought up Catholic.' When I think about good scientists - and some are devoutly religious and many of them are Catholic, Jesuit brothers and priests, for instance - I can never make out whether they are compartmentalizing their minds. Sometimes if you press them, it turns out that what they believe is something very different from what it says in the Creed. It turns out that all they really believe is that there is some deeply mysterious unknown at the root of the universe..."

"I did not tell Richard Dawkins that there was no reason to believe in God," says Coyne, who counts Dawkins a friend. "I said reasons are not adequate. Faith is not irrational, it is arational; it goes beyond reason. It doesn't contradict reason. So my take is precisely that faith, to me, is a gift from God. I didn't reason to it, I didn't merit it - it was given to me as a gift through my family and my teachers.... My science helps to enrich that gift from God, because I see in his creation what a marvelous and loving god he is. For instance, by making the universe an evolutionary universe - he didn't make it a ready-made, like a washing machine or a car - he made it a universe that has in it a participation of creativity. Dawkins's real question to me should be, 'How come you have the gift of faith and I don't?' And that's an embarrassment for me. The only thing I can say is that either you have it and don't know it, or God works with each of us differently, and God does not deny that gift to anybody. I firmly believe that."

]]>Tue, 03 Oct 2017 11:16:34 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/r6sqs/the-cosmic-conflict-of-religion-and-sciencebraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/n6sqs/legislating-morality-and-homosexuality
Politics are a disgusting abyss of failed attempts to legislate morality. But why is it like that? Perhaps one of the primary reasons is because people can't seem to agree on what morality is; or, more specifically, they can't agree on what is right and what is wrong in any objective sense. There aren't any standards. It's all conjecture. It's all relative. One opinion is just as good as everyone else's opinions.

Take homosexuality for example. The formal opinion of the Vatican, which claims that gays, lesbians, and transgender persons are "intrinsically morally disordered" seemingly cannot be objectively argued as better or worse than the position that homosexuality is natural. As a result, politics become a fight with real violence over who gets to coerce others to follow their beliefs. There's only one factor that makes a difference in the democratic enforcement of a moral code: which group is the majority.

In one sense, the gay rights debate is about the fundamentals of what love is and what is required to fulfill that sense of love. In another sense, the debate is about which privileges a person is allowed (e.g., with whom we can associate in marriage, what we can say even if it's not considered politically correct). Thus, with differing opinions of morality, you have groups jockeying for the majority position so that democracy can then enforce their will. The warring factions don't appear to be arguing over the fundamentals of freedom from an ideological perspective, but just as they relate to specific privileges for specific groups. When a group gains the majority, their governments legislate according to their moral code (e.g., imposing the death penalty on gays, criminalizing gay sex by making it illegal). But, in a world where the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are now seemingly empty, it is becoming more difficult to gain a majority in any idea.

Should sexual preference or orientation play into someone's moral character? In your opinion, does homosexuality result from biology or choice? Can our psychology be separated from our biology? Should people have the right to do as they please in sexual matters so long as they are not initiating force? Should all associations be voluntary in a free society? Which moral choices do you think should be outside the purview of politics?

While Ayn Rand did consider homosexuality to be immoral, this was only her personal view... The essence of the Objectivist position is this: Homosexuality can be a moral issue only to the extent that it is a matter of choice. Scientific evidence shows that, in many cases, people don't choose their sexual orientations - it is in their natures to prefer sexual relations with members of the same sex, members of the opposite sex, or both. On the other hand, people can choose whether to act in accordance with their natures, and since sex is essential to man's life and happiness, this is a moral issue. It is morally right for people to act in accordance with their natures, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or anything in-between.

Objectivism holds that sex is morally important, but not for the traditionally cited reasons. While some believe that sex should be practiced only in order to procreate or only in accordance with the mandates of their religions, Objectivism holds that sex is morally important because it can promote one's life and happiness. Sex is not merely a hedonic process that produces immediate sensory pleasure. Sex, "[t]o a rational man... is an expression of self-esteem - a celebration of himself and of existence" (Ayn Rand, "Of Living Death," The Objectivist, Oct. 1968, 2). And for this man (or woman, mutatis mutandis), sex is properly a physical expression of romantic love, "his response to his own highest values in the person of another - an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire" (ibid., 2). Celebration of one's own life and of existence is essential to promoting one's happiness; thus, it is moral to make choices that allow oneself this celebration and immoral to deny or negate it.

So according to Objectivism, sex is potentially moral, but what about homosexuality? The few times Ayn Rand spoke publicly about homosexuality, her remarks were disparaging. She said that homosexuality is a manifestation of psychological "flaws, corruptions, errors, [and] unfortunate premises" and that it is both "immoral" and "disgusting" ("The Moratorium on Brains," Ford Hall Forum Lecture [Boston, 1971]). Apparently, she thought that heterosexuality was a universal fact of human nature.

]]>Tue, 03 Oct 2017 10:37:15 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/n6sqs/legislating-morality-and-homosexualitybraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/jvsqs/administering-justice-through-self-injury
Pain is a part of life, and we all have different ways to deal with it. In what might appear to be a strange contradiction, some even go so far as to self-inflict pain in order to avoid pain. It's almost as if some would prefer to feel pain than other feelings they have (or even nothing at all). Certain feelings or life events can make it difficult to cope and even impair how you function. It can be more complicated and stressful if we don't have a meaningful way to deal with them. However, if the feelings or life events are the result of a wrong we attribute to ourselves, as the study below indicates, it appears we sometimes use pain to achieve a sense of justice.

Do you ever feel guilty? What do you do to get rid of feelings of guilt? Have you ever punished yourself in order to feel better?

FTA:

Lent in the Christian tradition is a time of sacrifice and penance. It also is a period of purification and enlightenment. Pain purifies. It atones for sin and cleanses the soul. Or at least that's the idea. Theological questions aside, can self-inflicted pain really alleviate the guilt associated with immoral acts? A new study published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, explores the psychological consequences of experiencing bodily pain.

Psychological scientist Brock Bastian of the University of Queensland, Australia and his colleagues recruited a group of young men and women under the guise they were part of a study of mental and physical acuity. Under this pretense, they asked them to write short essays about a time in their lives when they had ostracized someone; this memory of being unkind was intended to prime their personal sense of immorality - and make them feel guilty. A control group merely wrote about a routine event in their lives.

Afterward, the scientists told some of the volunteers - both "immoral" volunteers and controls - to stick their hand into a bucket of ice water and keep it there as long as they could. Others did the same, only with a soothing bucket of warm water. Finally, all the volunteers rated the pain they had just experienced - if any - and they completed an emotional inventory that included feelings of guilt.

The idea was to see if immoral thinking caused the volunteers to subject themselves to more pain, and if this pain did indeed alleviate their resulting feelings of guilt. And that's exactly what the researchers found. Those who were primed to think of their own unethical nature not only kept their hands in the ice bath longer, they also rated the experience as more painful than did controls. What's more, experiencing pain did reduce these volunteers' feelings of guilt - more than the comparable but painless experience with warm water.

According to the scientists, although we think of pain as purely physical in nature, in fact we imbue the unpleasant sensation with meaning. Humans have been socialized over ages to think of pain in terms of justice. We equate it with punishment, and as the experimental results suggest, the experience has the psychological effect of rebalancing the scales of justice - and therefore resolving guilt.

]]>Sun, 01 Oct 2017 05:59:27 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/jvsqs/administering-justice-through-self-injurybraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/nvsqs/til-about-the-flying-spaghetti-monster
Today I learned that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was a humorous protest against the government's decision to permit the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public schools. Based on an open letter sent by Oregon State physics graduate Bobby Henderson to the Kansas State Board of Education, he "parodied the concept of intelligent design by professing belief in a supernatural creator that closely resembles spaghetti and meatballs. Henderson further called for his "Pastafarian" (portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarian) theory of creation to be allotted equal time in science classrooms alongside intelligent design and evolution. He explained that since the intelligent design movement uses ambiguous references to an unspecified "Intelligent Designer", any conceivable entity may fulfill that role, even a Flying Spaghetti Monster. After Henderson published the letter on his website, it rapidly became an Internet phenomenon and a symbol for the case against teaching intelligent design in public schools as well as religion in general."

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I'm writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I'm sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.

What these people don't understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I'm sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don't.

]]>Sun, 01 Oct 2017 05:25:24 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/nvsqs/til-about-the-flying-spaghetti-monsterbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/lxsqs/for-gods-sake
Possibly suggesting that religious beliefs were necessary for maintaining social order, Voltaire once wrote: "If God did not exist, he would have to be invented." Karl Marx agreed, calling it the "opium" of the masses. Yet, throughout history, religion has been used for both social order and disorder. For example, actions are sometimes taken in the name of God to help those who suffer from homelessness, hunger, or sickness. There are studies that suggest religion helps those who are depressed, and even studies that suggest kids with religious parents are better behaved and adjusted than other children. However, many innocent people have been murdered in the name of God. In fact, religious wars abound throughout history. Additionally, considering the power that religion has to proselytize its particular moral sanctions, religion can also be considered at odds with the power of government in that both religious leaders and politicians are competing for the power to control the actions of others. Putting aside whether or not an all-knowing, supernatural being exists, is society better-off having religion as a belief system?

FTA:

A new Ipsos poll commissioned for the November 26th Munk Debates on Religion in Toronto Canada featuring Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens has found that the world is evenly divided on one of history's most vexing questions: is religion a force for good in the world?

When the debate framing question was put to 18,192 citizens of 23 nations worldwide, half (48%) agreed that "religion provides the common values and ethical foundations that diverse societies need to thrive in the 21st Century" whereas the other half (52%) agreed that "deeply held religious beliefs promote intolerance, exacerbate ethnic divisions, and impede social progress in developing and developed nations alike.

As Egypt has effectively cutoff the internet to censor the Egyptian revolution, which was very easy to do, it is now much more difficult to know what is happening. (This is what a government can do when they control/regulate the internet. Still want the US government to have a law that creates an internet "kill switch?") Would the world be a more peaceful place if the Western countries stopped interfering in nations outside their borders? Would the world be a safer place if the US government would stop financially supporting dictatorships and allowing US companies to sell weapons to repressive governments? Would dictatorships fall more quickly if the West just minded its own business?

FTA:

The United States, Britain and our allies have an atrocious record in the Middle East. We have consistently given our support to a series of despotic, murdering, torturing regimes including Egypt, Tunisia and, for a long time, Saddam Hussein's Iraq. These eruptions in the Middle East present a moral challenge to Western governments. There is no question that we will feel very tempted to try and control events and maintain regimes which, however morally loathsome, are seen as sympathetic to the West. We must resist that temptation. The future of Egypt, Tunisia and other Middle Eastern countries is not up to us. Over the coming days we are likely to hear from a number of commentators who will claim that we must intervene in order to prevent victory for "international Islam" or some other bogeyman. It is very very important that we ignore these voices.

]]>Fri, 29 Sep 2017 19:28:44 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/sxsqs/mind-your-own-businessbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/ptsqs/disobeying-an-unjust-law
A few days ago, the US celebrated a holiday dedicated to Martin Luther King, Jr. A prominent leader of the civil rights movement, he was a huge proponent of civil disobedience. As the "did they kill him, too?" story goes, he was eventually assassinated (likely by the US government). Would you ever disobey a law you thought was unjust? Are there any current laws that you think are unjust? Have you ever practiced civil disobedience?

FTA:

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds...

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action...

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored...

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation...

Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily... We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed...

One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust...

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal... Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application...

One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust. and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law...

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal."

...Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.

...though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime -- the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

]]>Fri, 29 Sep 2017 18:34:23 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/ptsqs/disobeying-an-unjust-lawbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/htsqs/is-jesus-christ-a-myth
The central figure in all of Christianity is one man: Jesus of Nazareth. Putting aside whether or not you believe that God exists, a key component to Christianity is that Jesus did exist. But what if that weren't true - what if there was no such person as Jesus Christ? Unlike religion, which is based solely upon faith by definition, whether or not Jesus Christ existed is a scientific question. There are many who claim that Jesus did not exist and they cite various proofs (e.g., all evidence for the existence of Jesus comes from after he is said to have lived - there aren't any documents about Jesus during the probable years that Jesus is believed to have lived; the Gospel of Q - thought to be used to develop the Gospels of Matthew and Luke - is thought to have been written about two decades after his execution by the Roman occupying army but doesn't include any dates for Jesus's life or references that can be tied to known events). What do you think of these proofs? Do you believe that Jesus existed?

]]>Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:42:04 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/htsqs/is-jesus-christ-a-mythbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/gtsqs/til-there-are-surgeons-who-restore-virginity
Today I learned that there are surgeons who specialize in restoring virginity.

FTA:

The clinic is not in Dubai or Cairo, but in Paris. And the surgery they are waiting for is to restore their virginity.

Whether in Asia or the Arab world, an unknown number of women face an agonising problem having broken a deep taboo. They've had sex outside marriage and if found out, risk being ostracised by their communities, or even murdered.

Now more and more of them are undergoing surgery to re-connect their hymens and hide any sign of past sexual activity. They want to ensure that blood is spilled on their wedding night sheets. The social pressure is so great that some women have even taken their own lives...

Dr Abecassis performs a "hymenoplasty" as it's called, at least two to three times a week. Re-connecting the tissue of the hymen takes about 30 minutes under local anaesthetic.

He says the average age of the patient is about 25, and they come from all social backgrounds. Although the surgery is performed in clinics around the world, Dr Abecassis is one of the few Arab surgeons who talks openly about it. Some of the women come to him because they need virginity certificates in order to marry.

"She can be in danger because sometimes it's a matter of traditions and family," says Dr Abecassis. "I believe we as doctors have no right to decide for her or judge her."

...And while hymen repair may be a quick fix, it can't reconcile centuries of ingrained tradition with the attitudes of modern society.

]]>Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:18:20 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/gtsqs/til-there-are-surgeons-who-restore-virginitybraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/hdsqs/religious-beliefs-lead-to-government-punishment
Let's say you're a woman and you're looking for a roommate to share the rent. Should it be illegal to ask for female candidates only? Of course not. That would be absurd. But did you know that the same doesn't apply to religion? Should the government have the power to tell you who you can and cannot live with, especially when that power is backed by force? What makes gender legally proper and religion illegal?

FTA:

A civil rights complaint has been filed against a woman in Grand Rapids, Mich., who posted an advertisement at her church last July seeking a Christian roommate.

The ad "expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths,” according to the complaint filed by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.

...Harold Core, director of public affairs with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, told the Grand Rapids Press that the Fair Housing Act prevents people from publishing an advertisement stating their preference of religion, race or handicap with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling.

But Joel Oster, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the woman free of charge, describes the case as "outrageous."

"Clearly this woman has a right to pick and choose who she wants to live with," he said.

"Christians shouldn't live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians. It is completely absurd to try to penalize a single Christian woman for privately seeking a Christian roommate at church -- an obviously legal and constitutionally protected activity."

...The ad included the words, "Christian roommate wanted," along with the woman's contact information. Had the ad not included the word "Christian," Haynes said, it would not have been illegal."

]]>Fri, 29 Sep 2017 11:44:48 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/hdsqs/religious-beliefs-lead-to-government-punishmentbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/f8sqs/cloning-playing-god
In 1996, Dolly the sheep made headlines around the world as the first mammal to be successfully cloned. As a result of the experiment, President Clinton ordered research into the legal and ethical issues of human cloning. Many governments have prohibited human cloning research. Some argue that cloning is immoral because it is humanity trying to play God. Yet these same individuals go to doctors to get medicines to extend their lives and make them healthy. Others argue that cloning will lead to eugenics, evoking images of Nazi experimentation. If it was your choice, would you allow cloning research to continue?

FTA:

Ever since the birth of Dolly the sheep in 1996, human cloning for reproductive purposes has seemed inevitable. Notwithstanding past dubious claims of such an achievement - including one by a company backed by a UFO cult - no human clones have been made, other than those born naturally as identical twins. Despite success with other mammals, the process has proved much more difficult in humans - which may strike some people as comforting and others as disappointing...

In the U.S., not all states have banned human reproductive cloning. The United Nations has adopted a nonbinding ban. If human cloning happens, it will "occur in a less restrictive area of the world - probably by some wealthy eccentric individual," Lanza conjectures. Will we recoil in horror or grow to accept cloning as we have in vitro fertilization? Certainly developing new ways to create life will force us to think about the responsibilities of wielding such immense scientific power.

]]>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:40:34 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/f8sqs/cloning-playing-godbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/k8sqs/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing
People study science and natural science (i.e., philosophy) to understand the nature of reality. Presumably, the more accurately we understand reality, the happier we will be. (Similarly, when we operate against reality, "bad" things happen.) Using the scientific method requires our reality constructs to be reliable, consistent, and non-arbitrary. As such, some of these hypotheses are testable; others are not. Is the scientific method the sine qua non to understand the nature of reality? Which model do you align your belief system with and why? If we don't find the answer, does it matter?

]]>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:34:55 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/k8sqs/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothingbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/l2sqs/vive-la-revolution
France is well-known for its protests, one of its most famous being the French Revolution and the storming of the Bastille. There was violence. There was bloodshed. The king was executed. The French seem to protest everything. The French government recently and overwhelmingly approved a ban on burqas (or any veils that cover the face). Two French women are protesting the ban, defending the voluntary choices of people to wear what they want. Their non-violent and risque video ridicules the law with the Beastie Boys' "Hey Fuck You" playing in the background. Putting aside for a moment that many Islamic scholars claim the niqab is not obligatory in Islam, what do you think of their protest and the law?

FTA:

Two French female students have made a film of the pair of them strolling through the streets of Paris in a niqab, bare legs and mini-shorts as a critique of France's recently passed law. Calling themselves the "Niqabitches," the veiled ladies can be seen strutting past prime ministerial offices and various government ministries with a black veil leaving only their eyes visible, but with their long legs, naked bare black high heels...

At one stage in the film, the two women approach the entrance to the ministry of immigration and national identity, only to be told by a policeman to go elsewhere. However, a policewoman also present is delighted by their clothes. "I love your outfit, is it to do with the new law?" she asks. "Yes, we want to de-dramatise the situation," one girl replies. "It's brilliant. Can I take a photo?" asks the policewoman, who will soon be required to fine public niqab wearers.

In an opinion piece published on the news website, rue89, the anonymous duo - political science and communication students in their twenties - said the film was a tongue-in-cheek way of criticising France's niqab ban, which the Senate passed last month and is due to go into force early next year.

"To put a simple burka on would have been too simple. So we asked ourselves: 'how would the authorities react when faced with women wearing a burka and mini-shorts?," asked the students, one of whom is a Muslim. "We were not looking to attack or degrade the image of Muslim fundamentalists - each to their own - but rather to question politicians who voted for this law that we consider clearly unconstitutional," they said... Once the law is in force, a woman who chooses to defy the ban will receive a fine of 150 euros (£125) or a course of citizenship lessons. A man who forces a woman to go veiled will be fined 30,000 euros (£25,000) and serve a jail term.

]]>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:07:19 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/l2sqs/vive-la-revolutionbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/r2sqs/what-were-you-thinking
Whether you're a moral relativist or absolutist, and based on whatever standards you choose, there are actions that you think are immoral. What is morally contemptible to you now might have been commonly accepted practices in the past. Could it be that, sometime in the future, the actions (or inactions) that you sanction now will be condemned by our children? Look into your crystal ball - what do you think we, as a society, will be condemned for in the future?

FTA:

Once, pretty much everywhere, beating your wife and children was regarded as a father's duty, homosexuality was a hanging offense, and waterboarding was approved -- in fact, invented -- by the Catholic Church. Through the middle of the 19th century, the United States and other nations in the Americas condoned plantation slavery. Many of our grandparents were born in states where women were forbidden to vote. And well into the 20th century, lynch mobs in this country stripped, tortured, hanged and burned human beings at picnics.

Looking back at such horrors, it is easy to ask: What were people thinking? Yet, the chances are that our own descendants will ask the same question, with the same incomprehension, about some of our practices today. ...here are four contenders for future moral condemnation... Our prison system... Industrial meat production... The institutionalized and isolated elderly... The environment.

]]>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 09:55:11 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/r2sqs/what-were-you-thinkingbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/d2sqs/to-criticize-or-not-to-criticize
In order to avoid offending, is it proper to limit your criticism of someone's beliefs? Which is more respectful: critically examining someone's belief system or ignoring the topic to keep the relationship "pleasant" and "civil?" Is it better for society to exchange ideas openly, honestly, and vigorously, or is it better to maintain the "peace?" For example, should religion be off-limits to debate and criticize?

FTA:

Religions make certain claims about reality, for example, that there is a god, there is an afterlife, and natural disasters constitute divine punishment. Believers assert these claims and in many cases try to persuade others to accept them. These claims should be subject to examination and criticism, just like any other claims about reality. In other words, there is no principled reason for placing religion off-limits. Religious claims and religious beliefs should be treated the same as claims and beliefs relating to physics, politics, or pottery. If we maintain that a religious belief is mistaken, unsupported, or vague to the point of being incomprehensible, we should feel free to say so. If the expression of our views offends a religious person, that person has no more right to tell us to keep quiet than a Democrat offended by criticism of President Barack Obama, a physicist offended by criticism of string theory, or a potter offended by criticism of the clay mixture in his or her earthenware.

Our first duty is to the truth, and if well-grounded facts or logic contradict the beliefs of a religious person, we should be able to express our criticism of those religious beliefs without regard to whether the religious person will be offended by our criticism. I do not believe the issue is much more complicated than this.

And what about different forms of expression? There should be no inherent limits on how criticism of religious belief is expressed, any more than there should be inherent limits on how criticism of a political belief is expressed. Cartoons and slogans are freely used in politics. Is there any reason why we cannot use them to make a point about religious beliefs or practices? Religion should not enjoy a privileged status, especially when many religious people strive to influence politics and public policy based on their religious beliefs.

]]>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 07:56:19 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/d2sqs/to-criticize-or-not-to-criticizebraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/bmsqs/religion-and-moral-truths
Can a moral relativist and moral absolutist have an objective debate on morality if you don't share the same core values? In physics, a scientist will say that time is relative, but he will not say that time doesn't exist. A moral relativist is someone who claims there aren't any absolute truths or, said another way, the difference between good and evil is one of perspective. Those who are religious generally claim absolutist moral principles, but even a cursory look reveals that their application is relative. Should the determination of right and wrong be based on actual knowledge or the absence of knowledge (i.e., faith/belief)? What makes one's religious beliefs more right or wrong than another's (e.g., on what basis do you compare the Hebrew Bible to the Christian Bible to the Qur'an)? On what basis is a religious person superior to an atheist from an ethical perspective? Can an atheist live a moral life? Is moral behavior described in religious frameworks analogous to "civilized" behavior? Is there any rational basis on which to claim that one type of behavior is better than another, or is the collectivist attitude of "majority rules" the best framework?

FTA:

Morality must relate, at some level, to the well-being of conscious creatures. If there are more and less effective ways for us to seek happiness and to avoid misery in this world - and there clearly are - then there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality... Religious ideas about good and evil tend to focus on how to achieve well-being in the next life, and this makes them terrible guides to securing it in this one. Of course, there are a few gems to be found in every religious tradition, but in so far as these precepts are wise and useful they are not, in principle, religious. You do not need to believe that the Bible was dictated by the Creator of the Universe, or that Jesus Christ was his son, to see the wisdom and utility of following the Golden Rule.

The problem with religious morality is that it often causes people to care about the wrong things, leading them to make choices that needlessly perpetuate human suffering. Consider the Catholic Church: This is an institution that excommunicates women who want to become priests, but it does not excommunicate male priests who rape children. The Church is more concerned about stopping contraception than stopping genocide. It is more worried about gay marriage than about nuclear proliferation. When we realize that morality relates to questions of human and animal well-being, we can see that the Catholic Church is as confused about morality as it is about cosmology. It is not offering an alternative moral framework; it is offering a false one...

Even the faithful can't really get their deepest moral principles from religion - because books like the Bible and the Qur'an are full of barbaric injunctions that all decent and sane people must now reinterpret or ignore. How is it that most Jews, Christians, and Muslims are opposed to slavery? You don't get this moral insight from scripture, because the God of Abraham expects us to keep slaves. Consequently, even religious fundamentalists draw many of their moral positions from a wider conversation about human values that is not, in principle, religious. We are the guarantors of the wisdom we find in scripture, such as it is. And we are the ones who must ignore God when he tells us to kill people for working on the Sabbath.

]]>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:38:09 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/bmsqs/religion-and-moral-truthsbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/tmsqs/to-cut-or-not-to-cut
Why is circumcision such a common practice in North America? Does it really make a penis healthier and look "prettier?" You have this beautiful baby boy and after coddling him and caring for him, you subject him to torture that no man would ever allow you to do. And he's completely defenseless. Are the purported medical benefits enough to justify the violence?

FTA: "Over just the past week, two reputable medical journals published articles on male circumcision and came to totally different conclusions, leaving parents of newborn boys with a stark realization they are on their own, without a consensus from the medical profession... Circumcision has been around since before recorded history. Still, most American males were not circumcised routinely until the post-World War II era. Today about 80 percent of American males are circumcised, though rates vary by region... Anti-circumcision campaigners focus their objections on several issues. First, they accurately point out that the foreskin is rich in nerves and that cutting it away removes erogenous tissue. Second, they argue that circumcision is usually medically unnecessary surgery and that it carries risks like bleeding or infection... A more nuanced issue is whether circumcising newborns is “medically necessary” surgery. By the usual definitions it's not. Circumcision does not cure anything and a foreskin isn't a deformity. She does, however, acknowledge the validity of new data on preventing sexually transmitted diseases... These studies show that circumcision reduces the risks of HIV infection and other viral STDs like herpes and HPV, the human papilloma virus, some strains of which can cause penile and cervical cancer. There is some evidence that male circumcision reduces the risks of bacterial STDs, too. Male circumcision also has other preventive benefits, too, such as reducing the risk of urinary tract infections, especially in boys younger than a year old."

]]>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 19:41:36 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/tmsqs/to-cut-or-not-to-cutbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/zqsqs/homosexuality-vs-free-speech
Voltaire once said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." In England, a Christian street preacher was arrested and locked in a cell for telling a passer-by that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God (he was overheard by a "homosexual police community support officer"). FTA: "Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act... The Public Order Act, which outlaws the unreasonable use of abusive language likely to cause distress, has been used to arrest religious people in a number of similar cases."

]]>Mon, 25 Sep 2017 22:21:13 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/0zqqs/sex-politics-religion-and-iqbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/gcqqs/galilei-vs-carlin
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei (aka the founder of the scientific method)

(Or, if you prefer comedy over science... "Faith: believing in shit you know ain't true." - George Carlin)